| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Angela Eagle: I can answer a ringing no to the last question. The maximum period will be up to two years. However, the courts will consider specific circumstances when they decide whether to apply the penalty.
Mr. Pickles: The second part of my three-pipe question is, if the person repays the debt, will he receive the driving licence back immediately?
Angela Eagle: Yes, answered ringingly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am not sure whether the Minister has concluded.
Mr. Pickles: Our discussion has been good and fair. Our new clause raises an important point. We share the view of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that we want an understanding about targets. When the Labour party was in opposition, it was clear that it would target non-payers. The Minister says, fairly and reasonably, that the new system will try to avoid spending 90 per cent. of the time on assessment, although we shall come to aspects of that which might make that statement appear a little bold, certainly at face value. I hope that she does not take offence, but I do not believe that the Government have given no thought to the new targets--which do not relate to assessment--and it would have been helpful to discuss targeting people who have made no contribution.
There is general agreement around the Chamber that we should go after such people and no sympathy on either side of the House for those who say, "I've paid a couple of quid a month so the CSA will leave me alone." There is a general test of reasonableness in that. We may probe some more, perhaps in the other place, but I emphasise that these are Labour's own targets. They were not merely thrown together. Non-payers are Labour's No. 1 target and the Government are going for them more than anything else so it is disappointing--I put it no more strongly than that--that they have not said how they will achieve that.
The Minister says that it would not be possible to implement amendment No. 89, our other major proposal. She thought it a good idea in the excitement in Committee, but does not seem terribly keen now. She says that it is complex and would involve probation officers' reports and this, that and the other, but I hope that she will have another word with the lawyers. If someone is to be sent to prison, reports have to be obtained. Our judicial system does not throw somebody in jail without making pre-sentencing inquiries.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston):
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that people go to prison for civil offences. A person can be sent to prison without the whole criminal justice system being imported to the procedure that leads to imprisonment.
Mr. Pickles:
I am aware of that. I am not being highly critical and, when I received the Minister's letter, I did not thump on her door and say, "You are being extremely unreasonable." However, we need to consider that matter.
Mr. Swayne:
Will my hon. Friend give way on the question of unreasonableness?
Mr. Swayne:
It might be unfair to ask my hon. Friend this question, but the Minister sat down before I could ask it of her. If two individuals in identical circumstances had the same amount of debt, but one had no driving licence and the other had and that was withdrawn by the court, what compensating penalty would be imposed on the other, given that he would have no driving licence to withdraw? Would he be thrown in prison? Would that not be a penalty for not possessing a driving licence? In the interests of equity, we need answers to those questions.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
He would lose his bus pass.
Mr. Pickles:
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is a tough man, as always,
The Prime Minister is saying, "The orders have been quite successful; let us transfer them to other offences." The offences that the Government have identified are domestic violence, which is clearly criminal, and stalking, which is also clearly criminal. However, they are now considering extending such orders to the Child Support Agency. As the Minister said, we are not talking about those who are a bit behind with their contributions; we are talking about the person who says, "I do not care how many demands I receive. I am not going to pay."
If the Minister thinks that curfew orders are not appropriate, other options should be considered before the Bill completes its passage in another place. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has suggested putting people's credit rating on their credit cards; other civil measures may be possible. What we are saying is that the penalties must contain a gradable element. If the legislation is to have teeth, it cannot be all or nothing: there must be something in between.
I hope that the Minister will take a long hard look at possible civil penalties, because the Government's proposals are not satisfactory. The measure involving driving licences is not sufficient by itself. I do not mean to be hurtful, but putting that measure on its own into the Bill makes it look ridiculous--and no legislation that aims to make people meet their responsibilities can afford to look ridiculous.
I hope that the Government will consider what I have said, and what improvements might be made in another place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Pickles:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Again, I do not want to be hurtful, but I think it fair to say that the CSA has not enjoyed the best of records in terms of reliability. In general, Members of Parliament are not specialists--we are jacks of all trades and masters of none--but one issue on which we have firm views is that of the CSA. Every Friday or Saturday, when we hold our constituency surgeries, someone arrives with something from the CSA. People either have a lot of little envelopes that have to be put in order, or, worse, they have put all the material in a big ring binder, and one's heart sinks.
I must add that I think there that has been an improvement. The CSA has made an effort. It has improved enormously in terms of answering the telephone, and--I am speaking for myself here--I have always found its officials to be tireless and diligent. I recognise that they have been operating in difficult circumstances.
Mr. Bercow:
You are not making a confession.
Mr. Pickles:
We must speak as we find. Others may have experienced difficulty, but I have always found the CSA's officials to be very polite.
Mr. Bercow:
My point was simple. Will my hon. Friend confirm that his dealings with the agency have been on behalf of constituents and not, as it were, to plough his own furrow?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The rules of the House are simple, too: comments from a sedentary position are not helpful.
Mr. Pickles:
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham was making a joke. I am sure that the time will come when I will be able to laugh at it. Of course I contacted the CSA on behalf of my constituents. I thank him for making that clear.
The new clause is about empowering the citizen. It will demonstrate to the citizen that something will happen if a mistake is made. There are important reasons for seeking to introduce the measure. It is a question of the Government putting our money where their mouth is. We have heard the Minister suggest that everything will be hunky-dory in the new system because the CSA will not spend its time going through the various forms, or making an assessment: it will be more about collections, so everything will speed up. We are not quite as convinced that we are about to gallop to sunlit uplands.
The Government predict that everything will be fine. We think that, under the new system that will come into operation, unless the Government make significant changes, the CSA will be swamped. The level of applications will increase significantly.
The reason is straightforward. The reforms will dig deep into middle England. We know that that land is much beloved of the Prime Minister. We know that Labour Back Benchers are keen to say, "What about our heartland? You have to stop pandering to middle England and start to look after our heartland." The Bill is not the place to start the great revolutionary march back to the heartlands. It is about filling our surgeries again with a new set of people, who have never dreamt of having any dealings with the CSA. There were enormous protests last time, but, in the words of the great Al Jolson, "You ain't seen nothing yet."
If the Government are right, there will be no problem with the new clause because few people will claim, but there will be a move to non-benefit cases. If there is no benefit case, the parties can reach an agreement without interference from the CSA. That is reasonable and sensible. The state will have no particular financial interest, other than the normal and reasonable collection of taxes.
However, once the Bill becomes an Act, 14 months' notice from the parent with care to the non-resident parent is all that is required, and then the CSA can suddenly take over the case. That is why the whole process will be swamped. The CSA will be a weapon in the fight between ex-spouses or ex-partners. We do not find that desirable. That is why people will need the redress that the new clause offers. We also envisage that it will create transfers between spouses by stealth, and that does not seem reasonable.
'.--(1) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, set a target time within which the Child Support Agency shall deal with all cases referred to it.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) above shall require the CSA to pay compensation to the person aggrieved when it fails to meet its obligations in respect of the target time; and shall set out the level of compensation payable.'.--[Mr. Pickles.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |